Of All, Why the Compromises on Our Education?

The impact of budget cut on public universities is real. Great and inspiring lecturers are not having their contracts renewed, retired lecturers are not replaced and inadequate learning facilities, just to name a few.

As a whole in Malaysia’s Budget 2017, Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) faced a 29% allocation cut compared to 2016 from RM13.38 billion to RM9.5 billion. This is also a continuation from the cut from RM15.78 billion in 2015. Of all, UM and UiTM got a 42% cut of RM268 million and 36.16% cut of RM946 million respectively since 2015.

Stepping into my final year of study in UM, I recall having our class delayed in the middle of the lecture because of the projector that was not working properly, WiFi speed that would simply slow you down rather than help in increasing your efficiency, no manpower to replace leaving lecturer for a particular subject and most significantly, faculties being asked to generate their own income to sustain themselves.

The outcome? A depressing morale among the academic staffs and students in local public universities. How can a country produce more competent students if all our infrastructures are not up to par? How can a country produce the next generation of excellence if good lecturers are leaving and the others that remain are not happy and satisfied with their condition? Most importantly, how can the public universities provide decent education when they need to shift their focus to find ways to generate income to sustain themselves?

On the other side of the story, Ministry of Finance (MOF) got an increase in budget allocation in 2017. In 2016, 66% (RM21.44 billion) of MOF’s allocation was used in transfer payment and aid, with RM10.63 billion going into subsidies and cash assistance. For 2017, the BR1M cash aid is totaled to RM6.8 billion from the overall allocation.

While the aim of BR1M is to increase consumer spending in the market, as well serving as a direct method to aid the poor, we all know it is short-lived and not sustainable, and it is not that simple as a surface cash aid policy. In 2015, Thailand’s National Anti-Corruption Commission found the then Prime Minister Yingluck guilty of corruption from her infamous rice subsidy policy, which helped her won the election in 2011. They regarded her as ignoring the flaws in her program to advance her populist political agenda. Yingluck’s rice subsidy had cost the government near to $15.3 billion in losses.

Education is the core backbone of a country for long term prosperity, as the development of human capital can help propel a country to a greater height. The New Economic Policy (NEP) in the 1970s, albeit an ethnic-based affirmative action, the focus on education in its early stage of implementation with the establishment of education institutions such as MRSM had brought about the rise of a new Malay middle class through quality education, successfully reducing poverty among poor Malays in the rural areas.

In short, the pain from the major budget cut in local public universities have been felt. While I do agree that allocation is not always well-utilized by the authorities, just like any other ministries in the country, but the percentage cut in public universities are way too irrational from what should be a wise and proper partial calibration of annual allocation.

No one can accurately predict the future of Malaysia, but one thing is for sure: if policy-makers and the people in power are willing to channel the fund to cultivate human capital in the country rather than a short-lived direct cash aid, our country would be better off in the future than the future that we would be right now if changes do not happen, and I can only pray for the best for the future of Malaysia’s education.